Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

Yaaas.US aircraft cos. would love to dump their obsolete junk onto India when their own allies are dumping the F-16 and F-18 moving on to the JSF and other cheaper alternatives. This reminds me of a US trade team that visited Japan some decades ago and started armtwisting the Japanese to buy their (LHD) cars! The Japanese couldn't believe the arrogance of the US manufacturers. The F-16 is v.long in the tooth.It moreover has been used by Pak for decades and the F-18 CANNOT be accommodated on our carrier's lifts! A third l;arger carrier has been postponed as there are more urgent priorities,such as subs,helos,missiles,etc.,and is expected only around 2030+ By then the F-18 will be so obsolete ,long overtaken/replaced by the JSF and whatever new naval aircraft arrives in the intervening 12+ years. If the US had come with an offer for the JSF,particularly relevant for our 4 amphibs planned ,it would be worth a serious examination.

I think we are not able to accept that USA can sell their previous gen platform to us and then move on - jealousy.

Russia is ok as they are also stuck in the same generation as what they are selling to us - equal to the previous generation sold by USA if not inferior!!

Whatever we have bought from USA directly are only their current stuff - P8, Apache, C-130, C-17 etc. INS Jalashwa is ok as there is no equivalent we can get from anywhere in the world. We will be willing to die from leaks from that boat!!

Philip wrote:Yaaas.US aircraft cos. would love to dump their obsolete junk onto India when their own allies are dumping the F-16 and F-18 moving on to the JSF and other cheaper alternatives

As you may well know the USN would not be moving from the F/A-18E/F, EA-18G to an FA-XX until perhaps the mid 2030s. The program to replace the Super Hornet has not even begun yet. Your point is valid about the F/A-18 A-C and that aircraft hasn't been in production for a long time and is not on offer. Boeing is proposing a block 3 F-18E/F, a version that the USN has just decided to buy for itself (60-80 units starting FY2018 (orders)). Yes the F-35C is superior but it is also less mature and more expensive, and would likely be more performance constrained while operating on a STOBAR carrier.

Philip wrote:F-18 CANNOT be accommodated on our carrier's lifts!

A point apparently contradicted by Boeing program execs. who seem to think that they can make it work on the current carriers.

I would be quite surprised if the EA-18G is considered on either side since it is more of a strategic asset. If you look at the one export deal signed for it, it is really about bringing in the Australians into the US EW/EA world with long term training of Aussie Growler crews at Whidbey island, a duplicate EW range facility in Australia that will likely be used for joint ops training by the US Navy and Australian pilots and now the apparent RAAF interest to acquire what superficially appears to basically be an aircraft that the USAF itself wants for its Compass Call re-host.

Wouldn't be surprised to see the payload the Australians select to be very close if not identical to what the USAF has on its EC-130s and which it plans to port over to the G550. Australia is also a developmental partner on the Next Gen Jammer Increment-1, and will likely continue on to the Increment-2 program as well. I don't think there is a possibility to open up the export of a stand alone Growler type platform and this is why Boeing has never really marketed as such. The way training, mission systems, tactics, and threat libraries are developed, maintained and updated on the system is very closely linked to the broader VAQ and other USAF community and how the EW/EA world kind of moves as one unit. Unless you have a much broader strategic partnership in this sphere it is quite unlikely that they will consider selling just the hardware which without all the other stuff will be much less effective anyhow.

Boeing is obviously going all in and trying to project a requirement well beyond the Navy fighter requirements. This is obviously not the actual program where the IAF seems to be currently interested in a SEF, and the Navy in a carrier aircraft. Assuming that these acquisitions remain separate, an assembly line will be quite expensive for the Naval fighter order. It would be better in increase the number of Indian manufacturers supplying components and offset content but moving a 50 aircraft order to MII will come at a pretty significant price. With the Rafale this makes more sense however the rafale needs a lot more work to be done to be made back compatible with the current carriers and it will also be more expensive. If they are thinking about a future carrier ONLY, then it is better to consider something that will be mature in the late 2020s and 2030 time-frame and here all options including the F-35C, PAKFA-Naval variant, AMCA-Naval Variant, and even USNs F/A-18E replacement can be considered as there is really no pressure to buy in the 3-6 year timeframe.

Boeing's VP of program management spoke like ONE F-18SH in current form has a higher wing loading than the 29K and also lower T:W ratio (for bench-marking assume both are flying clean) , not only that means a longer take off run for the 18SH it also translates into higher approach speeds , for all the limitations of the fulcrum platform , 29K's low speed handling is legendary (one should take a note that despite having lifting body design and low wing loading the wing's are much bigger on 29K as against the Baaz even the lifting surfaces are huge)

It is foolish to make this US vs RU thing when in both cases we are going to be the one on the losing side ; I have a different perspective on this subject which is operating a large and heavy AC like F-18SH (we will come to 29K later , the ink is dry on that deal though) from a ski jump would be like driving a Ferrai on Bangalore's roads , we will never be able to leverage the air-frame's true capabilities without the catapult conversely speaking do we need a large AC on a small carrier ? Might as well re-direct that money into NLCA and hire people on "contract" for top dollar . IAC-1's design is done and dusted it is slightly bigger than the Vikramaditya and for sure will never be able to provide the SH a long enough flight deck to take off with full load without a catapult , we should go full steam behind the NLCA and keep Sea Harrier or Super Étendard's payload and flight envelope as a benchmark that is what any country building an AC for a small-medium sized carrier will do ; you cannot simply operate large heavy fighter AC from smaller carriers it is in-efficient in terms of not being able to utilize the air-frame as well prevents your from housing more AC on a small carrier.

When the English came to India in the 18th century they came to sell stuff and do trade , they still want to do the same we were enamored then and I see we haven't changed a lot since then.

F35B has been going through rolling landings and angled take off from decks and that seems to be expanding the load it can land and take off with. If it fits in the lift, this would be the best bet for IN. It will also add new capabilities that we don't posses. FA-18F/G ground based would be wonderful additions for the IAF.

negi wrote:Boeing's VP of program management spoke like ONE F-18SH in current form has a higher wing loading than the 29K and also lower T:W ratio (for bench-marking assume both are flying clean) , not only that means a longer take off run for the 18SH it also translates into higher approach speeds , for all the limitations of the fulcrum platform , 29K's low speed handling is legendary (one should take a note that despite having lifting body design and low wing loading the wing's are much bigger on 29K as against the Baaz even the lifting surfaces are huge)

While I don't support the idea of buying SHs, Boeing is offering an up-engined Blk III variant so the effective payload should be at least comparable. And the approach speed is immaterial - the SHs have done hundreds of thousands of carrier recoveries over the last two decades. Arrested recovery is mechanically the same for the Vikrant as it is for the Nimitz. The advantage in terms of the avionics and reliability, vis a vis the MiG-29K, remains substantial.

Still, IMO its too expensive an aircraft relative to the capability delivered. More cost effective to design our LHDs with carrier functionality (STOVL), while ordering supplementary (and hopefully rectified) MiG-29Ks and N-LCAs in the interim so the carriers' have a full strength, if very sub-optimal aerial component.

Brar's details on the SH unsuitability for the exg. 2 CVs and his perspective on a superior aircraft for a future larger CV is the sensible approach. These two carriers were conceived around two decades ago,when designing/redesigning started. The 29K was chosen for both CVs.If there are glitches,the OEM has to sort them out.No Q about that. Shoehorning other alternatives which come with their own problems of integration is compounding the problem.Since 29Ks are in production for the RuN,let MIG replace those unfit with new perfected ones.In any case the performance of the aircraft isn't in Q,only the reliability factor.

The req. for the 57 new aircraft was a backdoor attempt by the IN to get approval for the larger and grossly expensive 65K t CV,N-powered to boot.They didn't expect that the GOI would reject the idea for very good reasons,that the entire exercise would be prohibitively costly and beggar not just the IN ,but also severely impinge upon the def. budget But then "peddlars are peddlars" and every manufacturer well knows that the IN is on a shopping spree for eqpt./systems.The IN still hopes that if they can get an approval for the aircraft,the carrier would then have top follow. Innovative "wag the dog" approach what?!

Over the years we on BRF have proposed many innovative ideas and lo and behold,in the fullness of time,someone appears to have read what we've posted and many ideas have come to pass. Firstly,the need for amphibs.A decade old campaign! Secondly the use of "INS India" as our "unsinkable carrier",that is if the Backfire report is accurate.We've been demanding Backfires for almost a decade too. The retirement of the Bears left us with no LR maritime strike aircraft. Are the Backfires their replacements? The Backfires will be good replacements,even though Bears are still in Ru service,but they should be under the control of the IN,not IAF,as every second counts when a warship is about to let go its SSMs. The IN's NCW system would have to be integrated real time with that of the IAF .The LRMP aircraft and role was handed over to the IN decades ago.Backfires in the IAF's control would be a retrogade step.On the other hand if the IAF now want a strat. bomber and have chosen the Backfire,then they should be based not in the south but in Central or N.India instead,from where they can hit targets deep into China and all over Pak.The IN could have its own LRMP aircraft ,backfires whatever.

Future carrier aircraft options for the larger carrier would still be the JSF,NLCA,Naval FGFA,even a new STOVL Yak fighter,which (some reports say) is being tasked for a new design. If the IN wnated these extras for the two exg. CVs,then he wouldn't have given the "hopefully' 4-5 yr. timeframe!

Extract: "The jets have a range of 6,800 km, allowing them to venture out to the South China Sea from Visakhapatnam, headquarters of the Indian Navy’s Eastern Naval Command. The distance to the Seychelles is 4,000 km."

The Backfires will be an unmistakable message. The fight, if & when there's one, will be also be fought on China's eastern front. A fleet of 4 bombers won't be the only component of this strategy but it is a good indication of the direction the IN is headed in as it prepares for a showdown with China. Also, the Chinese will be a little more circumspect about future adventures with a new flank opening up in the South China Sea.

Boeing has dismissed reports that the F/A-18 is too big for the hangar elevators on the INS Vikramaditya and the under-construction Vikrant class aircraft carrier. The company confirmed today that the Block III Super Hornet requires no modifications for full operations on either of these carriers. Discussions are currently ongoing with the Indian Navy. What appears unclear is if the dimensional clearances in the elevators are too small for comfortable deck handling. If no modifications are imposed on both the aircraft and the shaft systems of the carrier elevators, how much of a trade off would it be for other parameters, including turnaround and sortie generation? A bit of a grey call right now.The emphasis on ski-jump operations compatibility — a capability that Boeing’s rival Dassault also claims on the Rafale — only amplifies the distance from an Indian Navy decision on whether its new class of aircraft carrier (IAC-2) will employ CATOBAR (steam or electro-magnetic) or a ski jump like the Vikramaditya and Vikrant.

Shows how desperate Boeing is responding to small issue like elevator size and all . F/A 18 ski jump tests are based on a ground based test harness which had a runway length of over 600 mtr which was limited to 308 meters for tests (that is in same ballpark as a Nitmiz class carrier) . F/A 18 is smaller than SH , has lower wing loading and marginally higher T:W ratio so Boeing's claims are salesmen like as of now.

negi wrote:Shows how desperate Boeing is responding to small issue like elevator size and al

They are looking at the IN requirements as likely communicated to them (and others) via the MOD issued Request for Information, and responding to questions asked directly about their proposal's ability to operate within those parameters. I think this is pretty routine for any OEM that is interested in participating in a program and has been issued an RFI for a naval fighter procurement directly by a potential customer. Anyhow, this is not the first time that Boeing has come out and said that as per their analysis, their proposal can operate on INs existing carriers. Earlier this year thy said the same in an interview with Vayu.

The elevator issue is not small. Being able to operate within the design specifications of the elevators would be a key requirement and being able to demonstrate that they can successfully do this without requiring expensive modifications to the elevators, and/or the aircraft would give them (along with MiG) a competitive advantage over other aircraft that need to be modified to accomplish the same.

As an aside, this will be hotly contested if it advances to a full fledged program. There just aren't that many naval operators with 2+ aircraft carrier plans looking to pick a foreign naval fighter and it would be safe to assume that all the OEMs will look to spend a fair bit of internal money advancing their proposals.

F/A 18 ski jump tests are based on a ground based test harness which had a runway length of over 600 mtr which was limited to 308 meters for tests (that is in same ballpark as a Nitmiz class carrier) . F/A 18 is smaller than SH , has lower wing loading and marginally higher T:W ratio so Boeing's claims are salesmen like as of now.

The article mentions that Boeing has in the past tested the classic Hornet on the ski jump just as an FYI. This obviously has nothing to do as far their actual response to the Indian RFI where they have said they have done some preliminary M&S. If and when this even advances to an RFP and a formal program of record I am sure both Dassault and Boeing will consider actually doing some hard demos to support their proposals if they think it will make their overall submission more competitive (Boeing PR person virtually says that they are looking to do this). There are number of ways this could be done both in the US and by using IN facilities. For all we know the IN may require a relatively advanced set of launch capabilities be demonstrated during the selection phase (if as I mentioned earlier we get to that point). Landing demos will be easy since Boeing can simply point to literally tens of thousands of traps across their fleet of Super Hornet and Growler with all sorts of landing weights including those on the Growler which routinely lands with 3 500 kg jamming pods, a couple of hundred kgs of additional RWR/ESM gear, and empty fuel tanks and/or missiles.

F/A 18 is smaller than SH , has lower wing loading and marginally higher T:W ratio so Boeing's claims are salesmen like as of now.

We will know exactly what the configuration of the USNs block IIIs will look like by March-April of 2018. In their offer to the USN, Boeing has included the enhancements to the engine and we will know whether the USN requests those to be included in its FYDP by next year. If that is the case we could be looking at another 15-20% thrust improvement over the baseline F414-GE-400 which has implications across the LCA-MK2, and likely AMCA line as well.

The Growler is a story of “incremental innovation” for Boeing. The Navy has almost doubled its original program of record to about 160 from 88.

The service is now moving forward with planned upgrades that will keep the aircraft relevant into the 2040s. The centerpiece of the “Advanced Growler” is Raytheon’s Next-Generation Jammer, which passed a critical design review in April. Complementary features are improvements to the Growler’s integrated ALQ-218 radar warning, electronic support and electronic intelligence systems, which also are produced by Northrop.

Boeing says it is still in contract negotiations with the U.S. Navy to pull all of the planned Growler upgrades into a single service-life upgrade program, which would include an extension of the aircraft’s structural service life to 9,000 from 6,000 hr. The airframer also is pushing the GE F414 Enhanced Engine for the Growler and Super Hornet, which would provide 18% more power. AviationWeek, May 2017

Any pics of the MKIs carrying the KH-59? The IN is searching for more anti-ship missiles.When we already have BMos and are to jointly develop BMos-L,a smaller version,one can't understand the need for mote types,as western ones are all subsonic. It would be better to standardise on a universal missile that could be launched from air,sea and sub-surface.

the kh59 is quite cumbersome . its engine is fixed and hangs below the missile airframe and its needs a datalink pod on mothership that eats up one pylon. nevertheless we have a unknown number for lack of anything better.the APK9 pod itself is 260kg and looks like a a2g missilehttp://cmano-db.com/pdf/weapon/1024/

Singha wrote:the kh59 is quite cumbersome . its engine is fixed and hangs below the missile airframe and its needs a datalink pod on mothership that eats up one pylon. nevertheless we have a unknown number for lack of anything better.the APK9 pod itself is 260kg and looks like a a2g missilehttp://cmano-db.com/pdf/weapon/1024/

While it is a good secondary mode to have on an ARM (the AARGM has a surface attack capability as well) it will mainly be used as a means to disable ship systems given the relatively small BF warhead requirement from an ARM mission perspective.

“The challenge is going to be that of categorisation. The tender process itself will take three years and then the torpedoes will have to be integrated with the submarines, which will take another two-three years, if not more. Unless there is a government-to-government deal, things are expected to drag on,” said a representative of a leading Indian defence firm, requesting anonymity.

However, these submarines will be commissioned without torpedoes. During their sea trials, the Navy had used 20-year old torpedoes from its inventory.

The elevator issue is not small. Being able to operate within the design specifications of the elevators would be a key requirement and being able to demonstrate that they can successfully do this without requiring expensive modifications to the elevators, and/or the aircraft would give them (along with MiG) a competitive advantage over other aircraft that need to be modified to accomplish the same. ...

I've lost the link but I remember reading that is some discussion underway about fitting the F35B with the F35 wings. If that happens, would they be foldable?

I've lost the link but I remember reading that is some discussion underway about fitting the F35B with the F35 wings. If that happens, would they be foldable?

I assume you mentioned F-35C wings. No it would not happen because it would adversely impact performance where it matters. One could possibly design the existing F-35A/B wings to make them foldable but that is not a trivial thing from a cost point of view.

I've lost the link but I remember reading that is some discussion underway about fitting the F35B with the F35 wings. If that happens, would they be foldable?

I assume you mentioned F-35C wings. No it would not happen because it would adversely impact performance where it matters. One could possibly design the existing F-35A/B wings to make them foldable but that is not a trivial thing from a cost point of view.

Yes. To clarify, it was F35C wings on F-35B. and I'm not sure whether it was David Berke who said or someone else.

It wouldn't be feasible for the STOVL variant as you will reducing performance, adding weight and would still require the expense and time to do a re-design and re-certify across the envelope. If one was actually to fund such a move one could simply seek to make the existing F-35A/B wing foldable. Would cost as much or cheaper and wouldn't degrade performance by as much. Anyhow, this is not really something that seems to be in a lot of demand. All of USMC's L-Class vessels, Britain's carriers and other potential vessels would be designed to accommodate the existing F-35B.